quote:

---

Last night, I joined a friend in a screening of that United 93 bullshit airplane movie.

For those of you that are going out to see this, LISTEN UP! Get to the theater exactly an hour and 10 minutes late. Then, and only then, will you be able to truly enjoy this movie. Seriously, I'd hate this movie if it wasn't for the last 20 minutes or so of it. The first hour and 10 minutes is mostly filled with bad actors playing as the people in the American Airlines airplane terminals, spouting out technical shit that 90% of the audience will not understand. Stuff like:

Angry guy with glasses: We've got a z9348t on lateral gfhv9495 intersecting guvjec its a perfect day for flying!
Fat Guy: Sir I think we have a hi-jack!
Glasses: What? Whatever you're lying
Fat Guy: I think it's true
Glasses: You're wrong
Fat Guy: Oh, ok nvm
Random people: HI-JACK HI-JACK HI-JACK
Glasses: HIJACKKKKSSS DO NOT EXIST
Random people: Z94t58 all the birds are squaking except one
Glasses: I'm too busy for this I NEED TO GO TO A MEETING
Bunny lady: Thirr(sir) there's a hi-jack
Glasses: Oh REALLY?
*CRAAAAZZZZY camera angles that almost made me vomit throught the ENTIRE movie*
HIJAACCCKK!!
I think there's another! Oh wait I'm wrong.
HIIJACCCCCKCCKCKCKCKCK!

...I'm not kidding either. It was that confusing. You think I am, but I'm not.
I think they even edited it out of place or something. At one point of the movie, I thought that the planes had hit the WTC because it shows smoke coming out of the towers, but then 5 minutes later they show the first one slam into it. What the heck?!
OH OH Then there's this terrorist with this insanely huge unibrow that I just couldn't stop staring at. He's like:

ALLAH!!!!!!

However, the last 20-30 minutes of the movie are actually pretty good. It basically re-enacts what happened inside one of the 9-11 airplanes (the one plane that fought back and crashed in a field). I must say that it's pretty realistic and crazy how it was portrayed. You know, it would have been really funny(and by that, I mean stupid) if they had some sort of Titanic-ish love story in there somewhere. However, it seriously would have been awesome if they somehow had some twist ending where all the passengers ended up living in the end, AKA Hollywood/Disney ending. But this movie was a documentary, not a parody.

Overall, this movie was pretty horrible(except for the last 25-30 minutes), yet it'll do amazing in the box office only because of those 9-11 fanatics.

---

The entire time I couldn't stop wondering why Quentin Tarantino was playing the terrorist pilot with Mr. Bean (Rowan Atkinson) as his bomb wielding sidekick. Seriously check it out, the resemblance is creepy.

Bottom line - wait for this thing on DVD. Seeing it on the big screen will only give you a headache...plus you can't scan through all of the boring ground bullshit in the first hour if you see it in theaters.

First hour or so: 1/2 out of 5 stars
Last reel or so on plane: 4 out of 5 stars
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 04-28-2006, 08:43 PM:
 
Ya know Brad, I wish the f*ck you'd STOP "pussy-footing" around and tell us what you really feel!
 

---

Posted by Gerard S. Cohen (Member # 994) on 04-28-2006, 09:41 PM:
 
What ever happened to the F-T rule that we were not to review films prior to their release?
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 04-28-2006, 09:58 PM:
 
"United 93" was released today, 4/28, same date as on Brad's post.

For what it's worth, U93 has a 93% favorable rating on rottentomatoes.com, averaging 8.3 on a 10 scale. I'll probably see it this weekend.
 

---

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 04-28-2006, 11:14 PM:
 
Brad,

One "spoiler" question. In the end, do they show the passengers ever getting into the cockpit and trying to gain control of the plane? The reason I ask is that will go a long way to determining how "accurate" it is. From the released voice recorder transcripts it is clear that the terrorists put the plane down on purpose.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-28-2006, 11:56 PM:
 
The movie was made before the transcripts were released, so they guessed.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-29-2006, 12:47 AM:
 
Gerard, we gave up on that awhile back. A sucky movie will still suck on it's release day anyway.

Lyle - spoiler answer ahead - blah, blah, blah, blah, stop reading, blah, blah, yes they make it into the cockpit.
 

---

Posted by Aaron Mehocic (Member # 15) on 04-29-2006, 11:06 AM:
 

quote:

---

Overall, this movie was pretty horrible(except for the last 25-30 minutes), yet it'll do amazing in the box office only because of those 9-11 fanatics.

---

quote: Brad Miller

---

First and foremost, hold the godamn camera still!!! I am so sick and tired of this bullshit "style" of cinematography where the director knows his movie isn't all that suspenseful and tries to make up for it by shaking the hell out of the camera in a lame attempt to try and get the viewers on the edge of their seat and tense because they can't see what's going on.

---

quote:

---

I am going to have to find this director and clamp his head in a paint shaking machine for two hours so he can see the kind of shit he is making. This movie gave me a splitting headache and is worse than Anchorman. Yes that's right, that officially makes this movie the worst movie ever made. Avoid it and all of this director's work like herpes.

---

quote: Aaron Mehocic

---

Couple of things I noticed as I read Brad's review was that I was thinking the same thing through much of the film, but probably not as harsh as he writes.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Dang, Brad. Looks like you forgot about avoiding that guy's work.

---

Well crap. Will someone please start posting "avoid this movie" threads whenever that fucktard makes another movie?
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-29-2006, 04:06 PM:
 
Paul Greengrass has They Marched Into Sunlight in production. The Vietnam War era movie will be released sometime in 2007. Greengrass is also signed to direct The Bourne Ultimatum, also due for a 2007 release.

I find it disappointing they didn't get Doug Liman to direct the third installment (since he directed the first, and far superior, installment of the Bourne saga).

I'd like to see United 93 just to satisfy my curiosity about the movie. However, it isn't playing at the one good theater in my town. Universal put it only in the suck-ass Central Mall theater. Guess I'll check it out on DVD unless I happen to visit Oklahoma City or Wichita Falls anytime soon.

Rotten Tomatoes tomato-meter had it rated as high as 95% yesterday, and now currently has it at 93% (113 pro versus 9 con reviews). The average on well established critics have it at 97%. That consensus is what has me curious to see it; otherwise I might not bother. I don't usually go out of my way to watch movies that are bound to piss me off.

 

---

Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 04-29-2006, 07:15 PM:
 
I disagree about the set up on the ground / FAA / military ... etc. I found that part of the film quite intriguing. The dialog wasn't all that technical or difficult to follow.

quote: Brad's friend

---

At one point of the movie, I thought that the planes had hit the WTC because it shows smoke coming out of the towers, but then 5 minutes later they show the first one slam into it.

---

(some might consider my response a spoiler)

... um, that didn't happen in the print I saw. We never saw the first plane crash into WTC, only the smoke coming from it, we did see the second one hit though. Again, I really thought this was a rather straight forward film, not all that confusing.

I enjoyed the film quite a bit.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-29-2006, 07:24 PM:
 
Did they use news footage for the plane crashings or did they recreate it with CGI?
 

---

Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 04-29-2006, 07:34 PM:
 
News footage (or ... it looked like it anyway). They also didn't use any crazy explosion sound effects, just like what people saw and heard on TV.
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 04-29-2006, 10:16 PM:
 
(Heaven help me:) I agree with Brad... it sucked! I didn't even like the last reel ...as if I could tell from the Screener DVD which was the last reel. What a contrived film!!!! Should have been a "Made-for-TV" film!

Anyhow I did think "The Bourne Supremacy" was MUCH better! HA!
 

---

Posted by Jeff Joseph (Member # 511) on 04-29-2006, 10:52 PM:
 
Saw this today in Valencia, CA at a Regal Cinema.

No trailers of any kind (Universal or anybody else's). Was this done elsewhere or just where I saw it?

Thanks,

Jeff
 

---

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 04-29-2006, 11:13 PM:
 

quote: Jeff Joseph

---

No trailers of any kind (Universal or anybody else's).

---

At the Regal Theatre I saw it in Bakersfield, they ran a boatload of ads (on film) and the regal snipe (Rollercoaster; this theatre never added the diital pre-show). Other than that, no theatrical previews.
 

---

Posted by Chad M Calpito (Member # 3736) on 04-29-2006, 11:17 PM:
 
I know that at my theatre that I work at, we added our usual Screen Vision, Pacific Theatres A-Logo, Movie Previews and our Feature Presentation Logo before the movie. I haven't had the chance to see United 93, but, I plan too out of curiosity sake.
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 04-30-2006, 06:25 PM:
 
Today, 11:40AM, Regal Cinema World 8 in Eugene, House #4. Attendance a dozen or so. No significant presentation problems, looked and sounded good. However, not under the theater's control, there was egregious CRAP code, several lab splices, and color timing varied significantly between reels.

There were no preshow ads or trailers, just the Regal roller coaster (still no digital preshow here). Bam, 11:40AM, the show started. A few people arrived ~15 minutes after the start time (like they probably always do) so they missed most of the 1st reel.

This film packed a powerful emotional wallop for me. I can't imagine telling this story in any different way. All the stuff with the air traffic controllers etc. was absolutely essential to the telling of the events. Same with the casting of unknown actors -- I don't think there's a single recognizable face in this, and if there were it would detract from the gravity of the story.

I guess I must be one of those 9/11 fanatics.

4 out of 5 stars from me, after factoring in a half-star deduction for the overdone shaky camera effect. The first hour of the movie would have been just as effective with a lot less of that.
 

---

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 04-30-2006, 08:20 PM:
 
Jeff - there was a discussion in "Ground Level" on putting trailers on this movie. I was against leaving them off. I wonder if after seeing how much ass this movie truly sucked, some regretted the decision to assume it was "too big" for trailers.

This was an absolute waste of time as it boils down to bad actors telling you nothing more than everyone already knows. There was absolutely no character development and in my opinion, it is a huge embarrassment for this to be the first big-screen representation of 9/11.
 

---

Posted by Jeff Joseph (Member # 511) on 05-01-2006, 12:48 AM:
 
I thought it was a terrific movie. It's "just the facts" approach was just right. The audience I saw it with was dead quiet throughout; many stayed for the credits.

In terms of "amount per screen", it was number one this weekend. "RV" beat it out, but only because it was in many more theatres.
 

---

Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 05-01-2006, 04:09 AM:
 
Brad, why don't you suggest that this feature only be shown in DIGITAL cinemas so there won't be all that jitter and weave?
 

---

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 05-01-2006, 10:38 AM:
 
Taking this film for what it was, a documentary-like portrayal of the (as much as was known) facts from the day, it was fantastic. I though the handheld camera was very effective in giving you the feeling of chaos that must have been going on and also making you feel like you are in the room/plane. The technical dialog was there for accuracy. You don't need to know that squak 7500 is a hijack distress signal. If you do know (which I do), then you see an accurate portrayal. If you don't know (which my fiancee didn't) then you just see the confusion going on.

I thought this film did a great job of portraying what it must have been like to be on that flight. The phone calls from the passengers to say goodbye to their loved ones were extremely moving.

If this were a fictional story, then I'd probably agree with a lot of Brad's negative comments. But, because it was what it was, I think it worked completely. This is a must see for everybody for two reasons. First, to understand the heroism of those people on flight 93 that tried to fight back. Second, to never forget the events of 9/11 and understand the mentality of the enemy that we are still fighting.

4 1/2 out of 5 stars
 

---

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 05-01-2006, 12:14 PM:
 

quote: Lyle Romer

---

Taking this film for what it was, a documentary-like portrayal of the (as much as was known) facts from the day, it was fantastic

---

quote: Chad Souder

---

did anyone else get the feeling they spent much more effort on character development of the terrorists and not the passengers?

---

quote: David Stambaugh

---

Same with the casting of unknown actors -- I don't think there's a single recognizable face in this, and if there were it would detract from the gravity of the story.

---

Well I have to agree and disagree. I did recognized a couple of the actors (Most notably "Mr. Sledge Hammer" David Rachee who just plalyed the role of the President in "The Sentinel") and yes it did distract from the story.
 

---

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 05-08-2006, 03:51 AM:
 
How in the hell does having actors that have been in other films detract from the film you are watching? I sure as hell don't think "wow, that Han Solo guy is really good with that whip!" Get a grip, people get paid to act, and guess what, they do more than one movie.

Seriously though, since when is it "too early"? What the hell is that supposed to mean? Too early for who? Everyone proclaming its too early for this can keep their collective heads buried in the sand and count the pebbles.

I am normally not this nice with my comments.

In all good fun though, I have to tell you that I was truly effected by this movie. It was not a good feeling, but it was honest, and it was real.

It brought back all the hate, the fear, the sadness, the loss of that horrible day. It brought back the horror I felt when I watched that plane hit the second tower that morning. It reminded me of the panic when the towers fell.

Why is remembering bad things supposed to be bad? I think that as a country, we have become so introspective and soft that we cannot even look at what frightens us anymore. We instead pick on what we can pick on in the way that we do, so that we can look like men, american men. You think terrorists get together and say "you know what men, lets not look at that thing that makes us mad at people, today lets just let it rest and get a happy meal"?

That being said, all people were in fact portrayed very neutral, and the mere fact that so many people who were involved that day played themselves in their roles giving it a new level of realism that only added to the helplessnes that you feel during an event such as this was.

Let us also not forget that brad is right. This shaky camera shit has got to stop!!! Geezus jiminy christmas holy shit man!!! HOLD THE DAMN CAMERA STILL!!!

Is everyone doing this now? Have you heard of steady cam or what? I swear I was going to puke.

MI3 has the same damn shit. Every movie has it now. DAMMIT STOP IT ALREADY!!!

Doesn't it violate some OSHA law or something?

The film left me speechless. My wife and I had to wait for hours to talk about it. It was painful. Even I had to wonder afterwards if it was too soon, too much. I can understand why people would think this, but I think we should be reminded that things like this happen, and we cannot hide from it, nor should we ever.

If we fail to remember our history, we will be doomed to repeat the same.

Ciao
 

---

Posted by Chad M Calpito (Member # 3736) on 05-11-2006, 12:03 AM:
 
I just saw this movie today, which was shown in DTS. WOW! This movie was great. It truely had an impact on me. I happen to agree that this movie doesn't need your normal big time actors in order to portray what really happened. This movie, while being really good, got my emotions ranging from being very angry to being emotionally sad. I think this movie came out at a good time. My deepest sympathies goes out to those families of the victims involved. I will definately by this film on DVD when it comes out.
 

---

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 05-14-2006, 08:19 PM:
 
CINEMA: Megaplex 17 at Jordan Commons, Sandy, UT
AUDITORIUM: 6
PRESENTATION: 35mm/DTS
PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: Shaky picture (yes, even moreso than intended)
RATING: Two stars (out of four)

If I ever get to meet the director in person, I am going to beat him to within an inch of unconciousness, drag him to Home Depot, stick his head in the paint shaker, and let it rip.

I wasn't right for about two hours after experiencing that thing. And I shut my eyes for probably a third of the time.

And I tried, too. Didn't help.

My head STILL hurts.

Aside from the camera work, I had no problems with the movie whatsoever. But that guy needs to never direct a movie again.
 

---

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 05-17-2006, 03:28 AM:
 
Rock on my brother! No More Paul Greengrass. And all those who have worked for him in these endeavors to dizzy us to puke levels in every film they do. Hanging from their eyeballs is too good for them.

Have you ever noticed that when you are up on 10mg of Ambien, 3mg of Melatonin, 1000mg Valerian root, 1000mg St Johns wart, 1000mg Asprirn, 1000mg Tylenol, 10mg loratadine, and 50 mg, benadryl, that everything on your computer monitor is in 3D?

CIAO
 

---

Posted by Matt Barth (Member # 3429) on 05-28-2006, 05:06 AM:
 
Alright, I agree, the "Docu-drama" camera style (that many people are attributing to Greengrass in Black Sunday) is not only annoying but it's a cheap trick and that hurt the movie.

I was very upset at the film. I know the movie was made for profit but I just can't respect someone willing to use 9/11 for profit only, I really want to believe some people truely want to make a story known. Throughout the film I saw the same old emotion-building tricks (the off-center shot showing a normal activity, the sweeping crowd shot, etc.) and I was upset. The conclusion is amazing and while there are a few actors you can recognize it's better than the Harrison Ford as Todd Beamer we can expect in later films.
Now one of the earlier complaints is the bad actors dishing out psycho-babble. If you stick around through the credits you'll see many of the ground people are the actual people playing themselves. This made a second showing important to me. On the second viewing, the tricks still bothered me but the story seemed more honest knowing the people didn't try and make themselves out to be great heros.

My answer for friends' questions is if you're curious, see it. If you have no interest, just stay away as expected.

---Matt
 

---

Posted by Chad M Calpito (Member # 3736) on 05-28-2006, 10:03 AM:
 
I have to agree with Brad & a few others that there is way too much camera movement. I mean, what's up with that? Can't this guy just keep the camera still? Even though I liked this movie, the camera movement to the point of dizzyness was uncalled for and ruined the movie.
 

---

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 05-29-2006, 12:11 PM:
 
The "shaky camera" syndrome was used very sparingly in the 80's on some action films to give the impression of massive action without the necessity of long complicated choreography and extended filming times.

One of the first examples I can remember is the ending fight sequence in "lethal weapon" between mel gibson and gary busey. I didn't like it then, I hate it even more now.

Directors have become increasingly dependant on this technique to make action scenes seem more action packed. I think it is time to make a new federal law requiring the use of rigging equiment or steadycam equipment. Violations would be punishable by death.

Not too much to ask.

Ciao
 

---

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 05-29-2006, 12:54 PM:
 
One of the few things that worked really well in this movie was the camera work. It's not meant to create an increased level of tension. It's very much in keeping with the rest of the film in creating an ignorant point-of-view. No one knew what was going on that day, and neither do the characters in the movie or the people making the movie. Everyone talks about hand-held cameras trying to mimick documentary style, and in most cases, that's not true. Even when it is, it usually doesn't work. But here, it works completely. Of course, it's viciously undercut by the ridiculously over the top score, but what can you do?

The stuff with the air-traffic controllers worked extremely well. I love that type of procedural stuff. The movie kind of falls apart when they get onto the plane. The ending was a little too sappy for its own good. It would have been more effective had it been more neutral. Again, the music is mostly to blame.

On the whole, not bad. But certainly probelmatic at times.
 

---

Posted by Richard P. May (Member # 3598) on 05-30-2006, 01:07 PM:
 
I will add another vote to the "keep the camera still" conversation.
When moving around, we don't see the earth jiggling. When a movie camera jiggles, the image moves within the screen frame.
It is distracting from the movie, and gives many people motion sickness.
Nothing like going out for entertainment, then coming home to just plop into bed.

RPM
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 06-15-2006, 07:11 AM:
 

quote: Matt Barth

---

I know the movie was made for profit but I just can't respect someone willing to use 9/11 for profit only, I really want to believe some people truely want to make a story known.

---

quote:

---

First and foremost, hold the godamn camera still!!!

---